America's fastest growing metropolis isn't pretty — but it's thriving

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This has nothing to do with density. Mumbai and Rio are poor cities in the developing world. Their problems are due to poverty and inequality, not density. It isn't like the slums in Honduras or Haiti are better because they're built to a lower scale.

The densest environments in the developed world are extremely desirable. I know of no really dense area that isn't. The densest areas in the developed western world would are likely core NYC, core Paris and core Barcelona. In Asia, for developed places, it would probably be Hong Kong. It isn't coincidental that these are some of the most expensive places on the planet.

And the densest environments of the developing world are extremely undesirable..... Obviously it's more complicated than some extreme.... It would seem different people want different things. Quite a few dense inhabitants like more space and sprawl.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

177 years young. June 5, 1837

Well if you aren't educated enough to figure 177 years ain't that old for a city globally.... Or if you can't figure most of the growth was post streetcar age... Or how do they conclude what you concluded in the midwest......

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

And the densest environments of the developing world are extremely undesirable..... Obviously it's more complicated than some extreme.... It would seem different people want different things. Quite a few dense inhabitants like more space and sprawl.

Its true. Just ask Indians that. Mumbai, Calcutta, Delhi, all fine places. Its great traveling on roads which have no street lights and cows move around freely as 1000's of pedestrians move in every direction.

The best part is the train system. Allows one to have fresh air and not be stuck in doors too.


Credit: IFF

Theres a point where high density can be done right, but if not, its a disaster.

When it starts to look like this:



And theres a large percentage of the population under the age of 24 with no birth control strategy, its a recipe for a disaster.

Its only going to get worse too. So with density, its good to have it if it can be managed right and integrated into a urban setting correctly.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

And the densest environments of the developing world are extremely undesirable.....

Not true, though. Speaking generally, denser areas are more desirable in the developing world. The richest areas in Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Shanghai and the like tend to be among the densest areas.

And correlation isn't causation. A slum in Mumbai is undesirable for reasons that have nothing to do with density.

It's a silly argument anyways. The implication that Houston is in danger of becoming a Mumbai slum if it built in a more sustainable manner is kind of absurd. Houston is a developed city, and high density developed cities are almost uniformly very desirable and sustainable. There is no developed city anywhere on earth that became "too dense" and suffered some type of degradation of sustainability and prosperity.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by YakuzaIce

I was going to say I don't remember air quality being as bad as that image since the 90's, but I am fairly sure the image is actually from the 90's. Maybe very early 2000's since I see some shape that could be MMP.

Actually, going by the refinery and Google Earth satellite history it was sometime between 1995 and 2002. The building with the four cooling towers near the bayou is gone by 2002. The layout of the tanks behind it matches 2002, but was different in 1995.

Or I could have just image searched it. Wikipedia shows it posted on November 12, 2000. However, the description lists it as December 11. The original source link is no longer online. The mystery continues.

Air quality has improved in all cities since the 90s. San Diego used to average 100+ ozone days, now it's only 7 and it's because of one monitoring station 30 miles east of here in the foothills.

[Major AWACS]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This has nothing to do with density. Mumbai and Rio are poor cities in the developing world. Their problems are due to poverty and inequality, not density. It isn't like the slums in Honduras or Haiti are better because they're built to a lower scale.

The densest environments in the developed world are extremely desirable. I know of no really dense area that isn't. The densest areas in the developed western world would are likely core NYC, core Paris and core Barcelona. In Asia, for developed places, it would probably be Hong Kong. It isn't coincidental that these are some of the most expensive places on the planet.

It most certainly does. Density and sustainability are most certainly intertwined. I get that you like wealthy density. Who doesn't? But rich people also like to get away from density and have space. For every penthouse there is a vacation or three. The wealthier people get the more space they often want.

I've been to the slums of Honduras and El Salvador and several in Mexico City, they are plenty dense BTW. Density is part of the discussion and has been for decades.


Your point about Houston becoming over dense is not correct. There have been areas that could not exist via continued sustainability with too quick of growth and densification. While Houston is managing it 'ok', there are areas getting so dense that transportation is a problem causing bigger knock-on effects.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Major AWACS

It most certainly does. Density and sustainability are most certainly intertwined. I get that you like wealthy density. Who doesn't? But rich people also like to get away from density and have space. For every penthouse there is a vacation or three. The wealthier people get the more space they often want.

Please show us one example of a developed world city that deteriorated and became less sustainable because of an increase in density.

Originally Posted by Major AWACS

I've been to the slums of Honduras and El Salvador and several in Mexico City, they are plenty dense BTW. Density is part of the discussion and has been for decades.

No, it isn't relevant, at all. The densest neighborhoods in places like Mexico City are generally the richest ones. Slums in Latin America aren't troubled because of density.

In fact in Mexico there is a federal effort to increase density in poor areas, since the slums tend to be sprawling and far from cities.

[mhays]

Those two photos from India would be compelling except:
1. Those overloaded trains apparently run very infrequently, and of course it's also about poverty. Run a train every 20 minutes and lower the fares and those people would fit easily. (As I hear it, some of these run once a day or something.)
2. The traffic photo isn't in a dense area. It's more about lack of transit, or possibly even a lack of density, that in combination drive a lot of people to drive or ride motorbikes. Also it appears to be a market square, which is a nodal type of thing.

[BnaBreaker]

Yeah, this argument is getting silly. Slums are necessarily dense, because dense environments are the most convenient, sustainable, and efficient, particularly for people with no automated source of transportation, but as Crawford stated, they aren't slums AS A RESULT of their density. They're just dense because it wouldn't make sense to have a limit of five shacks to an acre. It's true that the slums of Mexico City are dense. But so are Zona Rosa and Hipodromo. By the logic of some here, we should be expecting slum lords to take over those neighborhoods any month now.

[Austinlee]

Alright you slumdog densenaires, back on topic.




(Sorry, i just wanted to use that sweet line I came up with)

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Yeah, this argument is getting silly. Slums are necessarily dense, because dense environments are the most convenient, sustainable, and efficient, particularly for people with no automated source of transportation, but as Crawford stated, they aren't slums AS A RESULT of their density. They're just dense because it wouldn't make sense to have a limit of five shacks to an acre. It's true that the slums of Mexico City are dense. But so are Zona Rosa and Hipodromo. By the logic of some here, we should be expecting slum lords to take over those neighborhoods any month now.

Poverty comes in all forms. The poor mountain people of West Virginia are some of the poorest in the western world. They live on large lots with well spaced out land generally speaking. In the mountains of the Andes in South America there are cultures that are dirt poor, very rural, very disconnected from society. Then you have the urban poor of Mumbai.

Wealth comes in all forms. You have the ultra-dense wealth in Manhattan. People who pay millions to live in the sky on small lots of land, in penthouses on top of one another. In India, you have ultra wealthy living in dense high-rises. In fact, one wealthy Indian built a skyscraper for himself. You also have bucolic wealth in rural and suburban landscapes too. South Florida is filled with single family homes where millionaires and billionaires who can't stand anything below 60 degrees land their second or third or tenth home. There are wealthy mansions in Wyoming and Montana that serve as a getaway for the wealthy elite. Wasn't that what founded places like Jekyll Island, GA? Wealth can take all kinds of density forms high to ultra low.

Wealth and poverty can operate within any density context. Its the economic system that is the problem, not the level of density.

[Major AWACS]

I know you do not want it to be true. I know it hurts so bad deep down because it is not. I know that affects your worldview so bad, but it does not change the facts.

You can keep thinking it does though if it makes you feel better, and ignoring the entire sustainability concept involved. It is ok, that is the M.O. for such things it seems. You missed the entire point of the postings.

[Reverberation]

I pulled some photos from Google Earth that show the transformation of some of the inner loop neighborhoods over the last 10 years;

Heights 2002:


Heights 2014:


Heights (zoomed out) 2002:


Heights (zoomed out) 2014:


Rice Military 2002:


Rice Military 2014:


Cottage Grove 2002:


Cottage Grove 2014:

[Leo the Dog]

Phenomenal redevelopment!